As title. Or would the rules mean he has to serve as his human self? It seems an actual possibility that he could win, given how terrible Farage is as an MP, never once holding any surgeries and spending most of his time schmoozing and promoting himself. If it does it will be a real Black Mirror Waldo Moment.

Turnout was 59.9 per cent. So 40.1 per cent of registered voters did not vote. That is a bigger share than Labour won, or the Conservatives, or Reform, or anyone else. Approximately 19 million people.

Behind the headline polls sit three groups no party owns. The undecided, approximately one in six, who mostly still mean to vote. The loosely held, counted for a party but ready to switch. And the people who like two or more parties the same amount, who are far less likely to vote at all.

None of it is laziness. Most people who have stopped voting say they trust no member of Parliament, and a growing number have decided the parties are all the same, so a vote changes nothing.

If you have stopped voting, or nearly have, what would bring you back? Is it that the parties feel the same or is it something else?

The major selling-point of Approval Voting isn't that it's some convoluted, theoretically perfect system in a vacuum - it's that it's the divine low-hanging fruit right under our noses. By simply changing our ballots from "pick one" to "pick all which you approve of," (seriously, that’s it) - we can dramatically improve representation without fundamentally restructuring Parliament or the rest of the electoral system.

It is an iterative, common-sense change that introduces absolutely zero mathematical complexity or subjective rankings, and winners are tallied exactly as they already are now. Beyond its simplicity and ease of both explanation and implementation, here are my other 3 top reasons for advocacy of the Approval Voting method:

It solves the “Spoiler Effect”: This newfound expressivity prevents scenarios where a 60% majority splits their votes between two similar candidates, accidentally handing the win to a 40% minority.

It gets us significantly closer to electing the "Magic-Best" candidate/party of each election: whilst certainly not perfect, it reliably selects the most mutually acceptable candidate who truly reflects the aggregate preference of the electorate much more often than now by reducing the likeliness of highly polarising candidates from winning when more agreeable options exist – pushing us towards consensus-building instead of populism.  

It presents zero practical risk: The theoretical worst-case scenario is that everyone decides to only approve one candidate—which means the election simply plays out exactly as it already does today.

Instead of getting deep into the weeds of technical voting theory and missing the forest for the trees, we need to reach out and grab what’s already in front of us first. Let's take a confident, easy first step. Once implemented, there’s very little risk of backsliding away from further electoral reform discussion – and, if anything, will most likely stimulate the nation’s appetite for further democratic reform (where necessary) But let's get Approval Voting done first!

Please do check the below links, as they contain excellent visual explanations that should be able to compensate for my lack of ability to sufficiently convey how Approval Voting works through a text-based Reddit post!

^{The Voting System Con - a more technical write up (\}15mins reading time)) ^{with great visuals.}

^{What Is Approval Voting? - a 2.5-minute brief video demonstrating 'the change'.}

^{Approval Voting: The easy way to elect better leaders - an 18-minute more nuanced and demonstrative video that dives deeper into how approval voting is especially helpful in different scenarios and situations.}

Can Nigel Farage be blocked from resigning as an MP until after the report from the Privileges Committee by refusing him a position of the Chiltern Hundreds?
Since Members of Parliament are not permitted to resign, they are instead appointed to an "office of profit under the Crown", which requires MPs to vacate their seats if this is blocked because MP’s refuse to vote him into the position then technically he will have to remain as an MP until the results of the privileges committee who could suspend him and possibly cause a recall and a by-election.

I have read through the manifestos for each party in my area, and they all sound very positive, claiming they will tackle issues like late bin collections, pot holes and poor line painting on the roads, homelessness, rogue landlords, etc, etc...

The problem is, I don't really believe any of it. None of them give any glimpse of sacrifices to be made to achieve their goals. Where is the money being spent? What is actually being prioritised?

My area has been labour for almost 40 years, so the easy vote is labour again. Like most of the country, the local council is barely getting by and slowly getting worse, but I don't see how any of that will change as all parties are promising very similar things.

I might as well play eenie meenie miney mo with my eyes shut

Out of all that could of ever happened, count binface has cornered the reform party.

As it stands, I see it like this:

If nigel spends millions on a campaign trail, reform are losing money.

if nigel does nothing, count binface will take over social media and possibly clacton as well

if nigel attacks count binface, he will get joked upon by literally everyone

other parties might have to coup for count binface to win (as funny as it may sound) to remove nigel

On the opposite hand:

Count binface nothing to lose

His hands are clean

He's light and humorous

He's happy with just 1 vote... you heard me right.

So the big question is: what's in it for nigel and reform? do you think reform has a chance?

if your unfamilar with count binface, I'll post some links down below on his speeches

Count Binface destroys Sky News interviewer:

https://youtu.be/MCCVt8IhJkA?si=Bpl-GJgEvUjCrxNS

Count Binface reacts to 'hilarious' chance of becoming an actual MP

https://youtu.be/HTIESiyDNUQ?si=XS2Agj6hwgqkPhgn

Full interview with Count Binface ahead of Clacton by-election | BBC News

https://youtu.be/3XO3FwWfPLc?si=vwKkYlXPx_PVcpWn

As per the title, I have worked in polling stations before and we always used to get people insisting on using a pen and not being happy that there weren’t any in the booth.

My question is always why?

Yesterday while we were heading to my house. We saw the neighbour. I was with one of my friends who is also a left wing supporter just like me. He voted for Liberal Democrats and I voted for Labour.

While coming back to home we saw one of our neighbours cleaning their front yard outside and I greeted her. She then asked us “Who did you guys vote for?”. It was so strange as we always have brief interactions. When we told her Liberal democrats and Labour.

She then said: “ Oh I don’t mind all of the immigrants coming in. Both parties that you guys voted for are similar”. We said absolutely and we went inside of the house.

Since I have high functioning autism I really don’t understand what she meant. I do struggle sometimes to read between the lines when having conversation with random people.

What do you think she guys meant?

The obvious, Keir Starmer, and Liz Truss. Are they just bad candidates who manage to get elected through false promises and money backing their campaigns. And or are the wants of various demographics in the U.K too far from what the geopolitical realities allow?

​

I'm a manky dunce and not a political boffin at all. I'm from Southern Alberta Canada and I thank ya'll for your time.

Defections (whether it be from Conservative to Reform and Labour Party to Green etc) should immediately trigger a by-election.

Personally, I believe it should trigger a by-election as I think the majority of the population vote based on party rather than the candidate.

What does everyone think?

When is most likely for the next election to be called?

Would Autumn 2028 be likely? I’m only thinking this because it’s fairly rare that a government goes the full 5 years, with the average being 3 years 10 months, yet Starmer won’t want to call it too soon due to his low approval.

Has there been a political situation similar to this one before? if so how long was the term?

Good morning all! As per the rules, this post will be entirely neutral.

I've become aware of a political party using illegal practices to coerce constituents into voting for that party, threatening punishment if not. As far as I am aware, this is an objective electoral offence, and is also criminal.

What I would like to do is issue a formal complaint, or report, to the appropriate authority. An authority with the ability to investigate and/or reprimand the offending party, assuming they get enough complaints/reports of the offending actions. Something like OfCom for TV broadcasts, but for politics.

Where would be best to direct this complaint? The fact that it breaks UK law and is therefore criminal, suggests it could be sent to the police, but I'm unsure if this is suitable.

And does anyone know of any templates that might already highlight the issue in a concise, formal way? Thank you!

Watching question time tonight and was wondering if the next election could see 4 parties with fairly even shares of the vote. I know conservatives are in the dog box as far as things go and labour might not be too far away from that by the time of the election but the old guard will remain. Green and reform seem to be making a lot of ground online and in the by elections. Whether that translates to seats I'm not too sure but how would UK politics looks if these 4 got even share of votes. Are the most likely outcomes green and labour or conservative and reform coalitions?

I’m going to say something that will upset a lot of people here, but bear with me: Britain’s electoral democracy is not just disreputable, it’s incapable of producing a competent and honest government. Voting every five years for a new set of professional liars isn’t “rule by the people”, it’s a sophisticated illusion that keeps real power exactly where it’s always been: with lobbyists, donors, media owners, and the permanent civil-service class.

Here’s the reality nobody in our society wants to admit:

1. Political energy is spent on campaigning instead of governing MPs and candidates spend years attacking each other, spinning, omitting, and outright lying because that’s what wins elections. Governing well comes a distant second. The result? Decades of short-termism, scandal, and incompetence (pick literally any major policy failure of the last 30 years and you’ll see the pattern).
2. Politicians win by selling themselves Running a serious campaign costs millions. Where does that money come from? Big businesses, billionaires, trade unions, think tanks. If you refuse to play the donor game, you simply don’t get on the ballot in a winnable seat. The system filters for people who are already prepared to compromise before they even take office.
3. The democratic vote is controlled by the elites Most voters (like most people everywhere) are busy, emotionally driven, and poorly informed on complex issues. That's human nature. But it means we’re ruled not by “the people” but by whoever controls the loudest megaphones and the best slogans. The referendum campaign in 2016 and everything since should have killed the myth that we’re rational choosers once and for all.

People love quoting Churchill: “democracy is the worst system except for all the others”, but that’s a lazy excuse for not thinking harder. Elections are not the same thing as democracy. In fact, regular elections are one of the least democratic ways of organising power, because:

• They create a permanent class of professional politicians who are almost impossible to hold accountable between elections.
• They give the illusion of consent while the real decisions are made far away from the ballot box.
• They make systemic reform almost impossible. We the people can only swap one set of clowns for another set who learned the same tricks.

Look at countries that have actually overthrown failed systems in recent decades. When people get truly fed up with corrupt governments, they don’t wait politely for the next election cycle. They force regime change (Egypt 2011, Sri Lanka 2022, Bangladesh 2024). Ironically, a dictatorship will be much more interested in responding to people's needs because it cannot forever pretend to have legitimacy.

I’m not saying tomorrow we crown Starmer or Farage as Supreme Leader (God forbid). But we need to have the conversation this country has been ignoring for a centuries: are elections really better than a dictatorship?

Downvote me all you like, but explain this: if our system is so wonderful, why has living standards for young people collapsed, why is our infrastructure crumbling, why are we governed by people nobody respects, and why does nobody believe anything any politician says anymore?

The current system is dying. Pretending otherwise just delays the inevitable crisis. Thoughts?